Editor,

I thank Peter for his views on the issue of appropriate age for marriage, but personally, I am neither convinced nor impressed by his arguments. Instead of basing his premise on facts related to risks, advantages or disadvantages for an early marriage, he has proved deficiency in "scientific” analysis.

Trying to explore how it is done elsewhere was good although not convincing either. That it is  done in some European countries does not in any way mean it should be done in Rwanda. It would have helped if he had told us the number of successful families in these countries that have got married at age 18. 

Also, he contradicts his arguments by not understanding the role of law in the human behavior.

For sure no scientist would agree with Peter that changing the law does not affect the way people behave. If what he says is true then why is it a concern? Why is he bothered with the prevailing policy? Briefly, I think there are more reasons to maintain the age of 21.

The first one is demographic. The earlier a girl marries the more children she is likely to give birth to, and the more vulnerable the family is likely to be. The second is biological. And, early age pregnancy increases health problems to the mother. Thank you.

Barakabuye, NorwichUnited Kingdom

Reaction to the letter, "No problems in lowering marriage age”, (The New Times, May 1)